Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'assimilation'.
I am an American citizen, wondering about this topic. My pipe dream was unite our people, we could benefit each other and we aren't too different. We could unite and work together more effectively against global issues.
References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism I am opening this to discuss the differences between our Multiculturalism and the general contrast of Assimilation through the American system. I personally have contention with our Canadian system as it has evolved to constitutionalize us as necessarily "Multicultural" without most understanding what this implies. I cherish the American constitutional first Amendment that particularly attempts to separate religion from being allowed to participate as a justification for law creation in contrast to our own, derived from the British system, that grants a right of our governments to impose special laws that privilege such religious thinking. Multiculturalism differs from Assimilation in this particular distinction between the American's First Amendment and our constitution that grants special privilege to specific cultural, ethnic, or religious groups. Most prominent is the fact that in our system, our governments are allowed to create laws that encourage segregation for those who desire conserving their power based on plural and purist interests (a preference for a favor to keep one's inherent genetic or economic groups strong through a type of 'pure' breeding mentality in exclusion to one's individual choices). While I can see how our system has helped give certain groups who have traditionally been biased and especially impoverished, the hidden intent of this is to preserve specific historically privileged and established classes distinct and conserved for all time by allowing them to create laws that protect them uniquely apart from the rest of society. But recognizing that they can only do this by emphasizing other special pluralities in the same light, they prevent dissension of these large yet other plural interests by appealing to their interests too. To me, this is a kind of agreement among the extreme groups who prefer conservative ideals to prevail by appearing as a diverse group of people who are all loving and neighborly. Yet the reality is only intended to agree to capitalize on building walls and assuring that the individuals of our society who would naturally assimilate from being empowered as the majority they would naturally evolve towards. For instance, what I do like about certain present conditions from Multiculturalism is how our aboriginal populations are improving through some of these laws. However, what concerns me is that while this may help NOW, in the long run, it will only foster a future of Nationalist who will eventually demand their own capacity to rule with a strictness of conservative beliefs that favor their ingroup to the exclusion of all others. In other words, our society in the future in this system will only become more and more divisive, discriminatory, and exclusionary against all others who opt to do things like choose to marry outside of their races not preserved by the historical protections granted by our constitution. Before arguing on, I want to see how others here may interpret this and to see if they either share this concern or if they can, convince me why this is NOT the case. Thank you, Scott.